Categories

Meta

When one uploads pictures of themselves online they are definitely make it easier for another person to search for them and locate their whereabouts. For instance when people tag you in a photograph and upload it on the Internet, that form of data will remain viral forever. Not only that, but it will have direct attachment to your name since, therefore when people want to look you up, that photo may appear. For instance, according to Lisa Vaas from Naked Security, “Sites like Facebook allows for tagged photographs that ultimately can have a negative affect in the sense that the photo contains inappropriate contents.” (Lisa, Vaas, 2013) This means that’s when you are tagged in a photo by a friend, you are at risk of showcasing yourself in a negative way if the photo is inappropriate. If a employer wants to find a potential employee through tagged media they’d be able to find that person extremely easily just by typing in their name and Facebook into a search engine.

With the wearable technology such as “Google Glass” I do believe that there will be an increase in crowdsourcing surveillance because know one is to know whether of not they are being recorded of taken a picture of. If someone is unfamiliar with Google glass then they will unknowing be taped recording right in front of their eyes. Google Glass is an invention that allows for a glasses that is worn on the face to complete unsuspecting task. If people feel like by walking through a crowd of people and have then recorded inauspiciously, then I’m sure people will take that opportunity. When camera phones and camcorders were the go to way to record information, it was competed obvious if someone was video taping you. However know through goggle glass it is far less noticeable. I find this to be a problem because privacy will be violated when walking down the street. However it can be a security benefit because people will have cameras instantly to catch injustices by the police of criminals. (Voo, 2013)

In terms of globalization, it can be defined as, “a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.” (Silicon Valley,2011) The benefit of globalization is that business is able to expand across the globe, which could ultimately create greater revenues for said business or company. Globalization allows for a exchange of ideas and collaborations across the world that could result in progression of a society. A new form of creativity could be reached through globalization for the simple concept that people of different cultural status can connect to create something different.

However, the downside of globalization includes the fact that it will take away jobs from citizens native to the businesses country. For instance, since globalization causes for expansion aboard then businesses will be able to pay workers less salary oppose to workers in their country. According to BusinessWeek, “Millions of Americans have lost jobs due to imports or production shifts abroad. Most find new jobs–that pay less. ” (BusinessWeek,2011). It is said that a business could save nearly 40% of profit when switching to countries that accept lower page wages. Another con with globalization is that it makes it less impersonal with consumers. For example say a company has a IT Support desk set up in Indian, then customers would have to rely on over the phone instructions oppose to being able to get hands on assistance.

Yes, individuals and or organizations have a grave responsibility to the public to report any digital security failures. That is because it would be unfair for them to hide it from the public because then the victims of the “failure” would not have the opportunity to take proper precautions to try and protect themselves from any further harm. Take the TJX Breach for example; they had experienced a breach in 2009 because they did not follow the correct standards in order to protect their customers. The worst part was that they hid this breach from the public for a long period of time, which ultimately hindered the victims from helping themselves in the sense of contacting their banks in order to enhance protection and investigation. It was said that, “at least 94 million domestic and international accounts containing credit card, debit card, and check information. Ten months after, Visa said the hack cost it at least $68 million in fraud-related losses” (Mangalindan, 2012).

Me being a customer definitely have the right to know if my personal information has been accessed. It would be especially alarming to see that money is being wired out of my account and no knowing where the source is coming from or how someone was able to gain access. If I am making transactions through a store front or online and someone has breached their system, I should be contacted immediately so I can take personal precautions. I don’t think it is fair for a company to selfishly hide the fact that their system isn’t up to standards while my information is being stolen. Although they will face consequences by telling the public that they are facing security issues, it is there moral responsibility to let me know if I am in harm. I chose their company because in some way I trust them to fulfill the utmost customer service. If they are hiding matters that concerns my well being they have failed and deserver to be shut down permanently for deceiving the public and causing distress to their loyal consumers.

I would not stop making online purchases just for the pure convenience of not having to wait on line and search for hours through merchandise. Although it is said that “nearly $2.6 billion dollars is lost a year through online shopping fraud”, I would still take the chance for those reasons alone (Sullivan, 2004). In addition I would not stop participating in online shopping because I believe that risk can happen anywhere. I can’t live my life in constant fear of being hacked or harm in a financial way because if it doesn’t happen online it can happen at a government regulated ATM or bank. However, from reading the articles, for future transactions I will make sure to check my account statement to make sure everything is looking kosher. For me to change my opinion on online shopping I would have to be guaranteed to loose money or know that the website I want to buy from has horrible security protection. Also if the website is not FDIC approved in terms of protection and reliability. Some websites are clearly scams and those are the type of site I stay far away from.

I strongly believe that downloading is a victimless crime. I believe that because the world is filled with rapist, murders and drug dealers, so I find it rather ridiculous that the authorities will waste valuable time looking for one who illegally downloads music or movies. The time spent investigating violators should be prioritized towards real crimes that cause death or harms to others. However, to society unlawfully downloading is a crime that is highly frowned upon. According to Jane Demerica, a writer from “Internet Technology 360”, she states that companies put a lot of money towards producing these materials, therefore, they would be considered the “victim” in the whole scheme of things. She also supports this idea with the statement, “When you steal something that denotes that someone else owns it. If someone else owns it, that person is the victim of the crime.” (Demerica, 2009)

Although I believe downloading is a victimless crime, I still consider it to be stealing. Under U.S. copyright law, illegal downloading could be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines (Knorr, 2010). The material that is being downloaded was created in order to make a profit. So when going around the transaction it is causes the business or individual to lose money instead of gaining money. Stealing is however, still a victimless crime because no one is getting physically harmed and these companies/ individuals do still end up recuperating money from advertisement and “word of mouth”, where people will probably purchase after experiencing of hearing about the quality of the product. Therefore I don’t believe one should get charged for downloading because at the end, companies still benefit in some way.

I believe that MOOC can work as an online learning tool because it gives the students the opportunity to limitless information. Online learning is extremely beneficial because firstly, it is very convenient and I personally find that I learn material better through online courses oppose to sitting physically in a classroom. I stand by that statement because when given work to do research on and having to look it up myself, I can memorize the material better then writing down and referencing written notes. Through online learning one can form multiple opinions and find infinite facts on a subject rather then being restricted to a textbook or a teachers personal notes. I also like the fact that MOOC is open to anyone; therefore data could be shared and expanded easily. MOOC also gives users the opportunity to access this information free and possible gain credit through courses when paying an institution.

When Sebastian Thrun founded Udacity at first he believe that it was a great tool for students to learn and broaden their knowledge. He states in an interview, “For instance, we now have tools to do very big data analysis. So what is the most up-to-date teaching we can offer people to become effective data scientists in corporations? That’s where we get by far the largest enrolment numbers and a lot of interest from our students.” He believed that online learning was a positive and beneficial concept. (Walters,2013)

However, now Thrun has a different view with online learning, now he said that “MOOCs not effective for undergraduate learning at all”. He in fact made a confession to Fast Company and he stated, “We’re not doing anything as rich and powerful as what a traditional liberal-arts education would offer you,” he [Sebastian Thrun] says. He adds that the university system will most likely evolve to shorter-form courses that focus more on professional development. “The medium will change” (Insights, 2013)

Aaron Swartz was a young man who had an undeniable talent for computer engineering. He was the founder of “Reddit” which is a successful site that allows users to submit links to content on the Internet and spread the word to a younger audience about important events. Reddit is a beneficial “social networking site” that reaches out to a wide audience where people are able to share worldwide news in a blink of an eye and with a direct extension to the source. Aaron Swartz created this site because it exemplifies exactly what he believes in, which is that people should be allowed to exercise their rights to the Internet freely and openly. Unfortunately, it was reported that this internet mogul committed suicide nearly two years after being convicted of a crime that could potentially have given him 50 years in prison. It was said that the stress of the courts and conviction was the reason that pushed him to edge of suicide. The crime he was being questioned for was that of using MIT’s network to download too many scholarly articles from an academic database called JSTOR (Hsieh, 2013). He was being charged on two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Some of Swartz’s family and friends believed that he was being extensively trialed so that the government could make an example of him in the age of “Wikileaks” and “Anonymous”. The reason Swartz targeted JSTOR was because it controls and limits the distribution of scholarship conducted by public employees, or produced by scholars with public funds, to only those with paid subscription access (Corriea, 2013). Swartz believe this type of information should be distributed to the public openly. There was no proof that he was using the information as a means to make a profit.

This story tells the public a lot about the United States intellectual property (IP) law in the sense that it does not hold true to the message it is supposed to enforce. I say that because the IP refers to the creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce (WIPO). This law is supposed to protect the intellectual property, however, this law did not pertain to or defend the integrity of the late Aaron Swartz. He was excising his right to creative thoughts and use to public information .Instead, he was being charged for something that shouldn’t have made it to trial through this law that is guaranteed to every citizen under our Constitution.